ITAT Chennai held that in the present case AO himself referred the matter for special audit u/s 142(2A), however, report of special auditor was later rejected without assigning any reasons for the same is in explicable.
Read the full text of the ITAT Chennai order in the case of Edward Sam Vs ITO. Penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) are analyzed in light of quantum additions made using peak credit theory
ITAT Chennai held that professional fees received cannot be taxed under the head Salary merely because consultant/ professional is appointed as managing director of the company. Various details filed undoubtedly proves that professional service is rendered and accordingly taxable under ‘income from profession’.
Learn about the ITAT Chennai verdict in Palaniappa Charitable Vs ITO where income from commercial activities carried out by the trust was not considered exempted from income tax.
ITAT Chennai held that rejection of special audit report of the special auditor appointed in terms of section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act on flimsy grounds without any finding as to how observation of the special auditor is incorrect.
ITAT Chennai held that addition towards unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act sustained as cash deposited during demonetization period cannot be said to be cash gifts received during occasion of marriage in December 2015.
ITAT Chennai dismisses the revenue’s appeal in Easwari Sukanya Krishnan Vs. ITO, upholding the indexation benefit as per the jurisdictional High Court’s binding judicial precedent.
The tribunal observed that the liability to pay the Customs Duty had crystallized during the relevant year, as the company could not fulfill its export obligation. Therefore, the deduction of the Customs Duty was allowable in the same year. The ITAT Chennai cited Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, which allows deductions for statutory dues in the year of payment, irrespective of the accounting method followed by the assessee.
ITAT Chennai held that CIT(A) deleted disallowance of interest made u/s 36(1)(iii) based on the fresh evidences furnished by the assessee. However, CIT(A) failed to afford an opportunity to AO to verify the fresh evidence which is in violation of Rule 46A and hence order remanded back to AO to verify the evidences.
ITAT Chennai held that delay in filing of tax audit report due to dispute between the directors of the assessee company is just a technical breach without any malafide intention. Hence, penalty u/s 271B not leviable.
